An appellate court should not interfere with a trial court's acquittal if the decision is based on a plausible view of the evidence, especially when the prosecution fails to prove rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment on Board

1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State against the judgment dated 07.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Case No. 1827/2013, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’).

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.06.2013, at about 10:30 a.m., complainant/PW-1- Ramdayal Dahariya lodged a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1), stating that on 22.06.2013 at about 7:30 p.m., while he was walking on the road along with the deceased- Dukalu Ram Maheshwar, near Sejbahar Society, respondent/accused, while driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-SC-4135 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased from behind. Thereafter, the injured/deceased was taken to the hospital by ambulance, but he died on the way due to the injuries sustained. On the basis of the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1), an FIR was registered against the accused/respondent.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court. The learned trial Court framed charge against the accused/respondent under Section 304-A IPC. The accused/respondent denied the charge, abjured the guilt, and prayed for trial.

4. The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge leveled against him.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent despite there being sufficient and cogent evidence on record. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and have clearly stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused/respondent. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the accused/respondent be convicted accordingly.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is no cogent evidence on record to establish that the accused/respondent was driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and caused the accident. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is, therefore, contended that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent of the said charge and the same calls for no interference by this Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

9. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 22.06.2013 at about 7:30 p.m. near Sejbahar Motor Stand, and that the deceased- Dukalu Ram Maheshwar died in the said accident. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused/respondent.

10. PW-1 Ramdayal Dahariya,